Monday, February 29, 2016

Hey Penny - Very interesting quote in this story by Patrick Cockburn:.....

So, with a well respected Western MSM reporter saying PYD =PKK its
getting harder for the world to deny unless they just ignore him

We're going to get to this statement and a bit more shortly. Mr Cockburn's information makes no difference to myself or my readers. It won't change a thing, I've written and written about the connections between the PYD & PKK. In posts too numerous to recall. However, his acknowledgement of these realities, will be taken seriously by others, who would have previously, foolishly, dismissed the reams of posts, articles, citations posted here, connecting the two groups because it didn't fit their perception managed ideals.

There is not one statement of fact in this article of Patrick Cockburn's that I have not written about for longer then a year now. If someone as mainstream as Patrick Cockburn is now informing the masses of these facts, will they finally become accepted as truths? Why is Mr Cockburn writing this type of article at this time? I'll give you a hint, it's really about Turkey and there has been a convergence of alt writers suddenly writing about the destabilization of Turkey. Something written about here for more then a year now. I'll save my thoughts on the situation regarding Turkey for another post, for now let's read the main points, concerning PKK/YPG from Patrick Cockburn/s piece : End Times for the Caliphate

"The Kurds are in a stronger position, benefiting as they do from U.S.
support, but that support exists only because they provide some 120,000
ground troops which, in co-operation with the U.S.-led coalition air
forces, have proved an effective and politically acceptable counter to
IS. The Kurds fear that this support will evaporate if and when IS is
defeated and they will be left to the mercy of resurgent central
governments in Iraq and Syria as well as Turkey and Saudi Arabia. ‘We
don’t want to be used as cannon fodder to take Raqqa,’ a Syrian Kurdish
leader in Rojava told me last year. I heard the same thing this month
five hundred miles to the east, in KRG territory near Halabja on the
Iranian border, from Muhammad Haji Mahmud, a veteran Peshmerga commander
and general secretary of the Socialist Party, who led one thousand
fighters to defend Kirkuk from IS in 2014. His son Atta was killed in
the battle. He said he worried that ‘once Mosul is liberated and IS
defeated, the Kurds won’t have the same value internationally.’ Without
this support, the KRG would be unable to hold onto its disputed
territories.

The rise of the Kurdish states isn’t welcomed by any country in the
region, though some – including the governments in Baghdad and Damascus –
have found the development to be temporarily in their interest and are
in any case too weak to resist it. But Turkey has been appalled to find
that the Syrian uprising of 2011, which it hoped would usher in an era
of Turkish influence spreading across the Middle East, has instead
produced a Kurdish state that controls half of the Syrian side of
Turkey’s 550-mile southern border. Worse, the ruling party in Rojava is
the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which in all but name is the Syrian
branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), against which Ankara has
been fighting a guerrilla war since 1984.

Reiterating: "Worse, the ruling party in Rojava is
the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which in all but name is the Syrian
branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)"

The PYD denies the link, but
in every PYD office there is a picture on the wall of the PKK’s leader,
Abdullah Ocalan, who has been in a Turkish prison since 1999. In the
year since IS was finally defeated in the siege of the Syrian Kurdish
city of Kobani, Rojava has expanded territorially in every direction as
its leaders repeatedly ignore Turkish threats of military action against
them.

The PYD/PKK at the Turkish border, safely ensconced in the arms of NATO, can easily ignore the threats of military action from Turkey

Last June, the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG)
captured Tal Abyad, an important crossing point on the Turkish border
north of Raqqa, allowing the PYD to link up two of its three main
enclaves, around the cities of Kobani and Qamishli; it is now trying to
reach the third enclave, further west, at Afrin. These swift advances
are possible only because the Kurdish forces are operating under a
US-led air umbrella that vastly multiplies their firepower.

Reiterating: "These swift advances
are possible only because the Kurdish forces are operating under a
US-led air umbrella that vastly multiplies their firepower"Readers here are well aware of this fact and have been for a good long while

I was just
east of Tal Abyad shortly before the final YPG attack and coalition
aircraft roared continuously overhead. In both Syria and Iraq, the Kurds
identify targets, call in air strikes and then act as a mopping-up
force. Where IS stands and fights it suffers heavy casualties. In the
siege of Kobani, which lasted for four and half months, 2200 IS fighters
were killed, most of them by U.S. air strikes.

The Kurds backed by US airstrikes- acting as a mopping up force. (killing those that remain.... who ever they may really be)

2,200 ISIS fighters killed- an extremely small number considering all the hype.2,200 fighters vs over 120,000 Kurdish ground troops. Backed by airstrikes. Seems a bit like over kill doesn't it? Of course that ground force & those airstrikes serve an entire other purpose, one that is clear in Mr C's article. The same purpose I've written about for so long now. Annexing Syrian and Iraqi territory- with an eye to Turkey.

Hopefully readers understand why I say "syrian kurds" is just a meaningless label. A brand you've been sold that has no connection to reality.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

The relevant provisions require that the president make preventing such boycotts a “principal trade
negotiating objective” of the United States in dealings with other
countries. Under the Constitution, the president has the authority to
“make” treaties, and Congress cannot dictate their terms or micromanage
their negotiation. Congress can of course tell the president what to
keep in mind, which is exactly what the law does. And the signing
statement merely makes clear it will be interpreted in the latter, and
not the former, way.

Such a statement was probably redundant, as
the relevant provisions inherently give the president vast wiggle room,
since resisting boycotts is among many such trade negotiation
priorities, and the law does not purport to dictate how much emphasis to
place on it or how to trade it off against other objectives. In the
normal course of events, the president could easily have ignored this in
practice, and his statement adds little to that. Indeed, the hollow
signing statement is more a venting of pique — that the Israel
provisions were put into a bill too big to veto — than constitutional
principle.

Indeed,
Obama wisely made no constitutional argument about other key provisions
of the law — because they could not be seriously made. The first two
sections of the law are merely statements of policy and findings by
Congress. These broadly oppose economic boycotts of Israel and
territories under its control, and importantly, conclude that such
measures violate WTO non-discrimination rules. As declaratory findings
by Congress, there is nothing the president can do to undo them.

The
next paragraph requires the president to make a biannual report on
boycott efforts, and the United States’ response to them. This is a pure
reporting requirement. Just because the president might disagree with
Congress about the merit of the activities being reported — he likes
boycotts, Congress does not — this in no way affects Congress’s ability
to require reporting. The reporting itself is entirely neutral.
The
law deals with trade with Israel, and restrictions on such trade
(boycotts). While the president indeed has a major role in foreign
affairs, legislating on issues of “foreign commerce” is a sole power of
Congress. All trade laws have significant foreign policy and diplomatic
consequences. Where trade and diplomacy conflict, Congress’s specific
Foreign Commerce power trumps any vague presidential “diplomacy” power.
No one has ever suggested it would be unconstitutional for Congress to
liberalize trade with a country that the president seeks to pressure or
isolate.

Moreover, one of the main operative provisions of the
law is directed not to the executive, but to the judiciary. Here, the
president has no constitutional prerogative to assert. The provision
bans the enforcement of foreign judgments against Israeli entities that
are based on the mistaken notion that doing business in
Israeli-controlled territories is illegal. This law on the
enforceability of foreign judgments is part of Congress’s exclusive
legislative power to regulate the jurisdiction, rules of decision and
procedures of the federal courts. This power is in no way shared with
the president.

Thus as of now, U.S. law clearly opposes boycotts
that are “politically motivated and are intended to penalize or
otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons
doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.”

The agreement, according to Ma'an News Agency, reiterates that US
Congress “opposes politically motivated actions that penalize or
otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel,”
referring specifically to BDS activities.

The act also cites that congress “supports efforts” to prevent
international organizations or governments from carrying out
investigation or prosecution of US citizens who do business with
“Israel, with Israeli entities, or in any territory controlled by
Israel.”

The provision, in effect, allows US citizens immunity from conducting
trade with illegal Israeli settlements, while its terminology fails to
distinguish Israeli settlements from the state of Israel.

This terminology conflicts with the US’ official line against
settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. But, the White
House, earlier this month, said: “As with any bipartisan compromise
legislation, there are provisions in this bill that we do not support.”

Friday, February 26, 2016

For the last five years Afrin (Kurdish: Efrîn) was the most tranquil of the three Kurdish enclaves in Syria. As in the other two Kurdish cantons, Kobane and Jazira (Kurdish: Kobanê, Cizîrê), the Syrian regime army pulled back from the region in spring 2012 and left it to the control of Democratic Union Party (PYD) forces, the Syrian sister-party of Turkey´s Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). As in Kobane and Jazira, the PYD and declared Afrin’s autonomy in January 2014. Unlike Jazira, there were no regime forces in Afrin, and unlike Kobane, the Islamic State (ISIS) never attacked Afrin. Afrin only had frontlines with the regime enclave in Nubl and al-Zahra and a variety of different rebel groups.

It's interesting, isn't it, that ISIS NEVER attacked Afrin? There were no SAA forces present, making for easy pickin's and still ISIS NEVER ATTACKED Afrin. But, the PKK was present since the 80's
Yet another symbiotic KurdIShIS example.

In February 2015 I crossed into rebel held northern Syria and into Afrin. Once in Syria, it took about one and a half hours of difficult negotiations between myself and fighters from Ahrar al-Sham and Liwa al-Tawhid, and between the fighters and the armed wing of the PYD, the People´s Protection Units (YPG). Eventually, the rebel groups called Kurdish fighters from the Kurdish militia Jabhat al-Akrad to escort me to the first YPG checkpoint. The relationship between al-Jabha al-Islamiyya, which had recently become al-Jabha al-Shamiyya, and the Kurds was not friendly, but also not openly hostile. The Kurds in Afrin needed the border crossing to Turkey to remain open for trading, and they knew that Turkey would close the border if the Kurds seized it from the rebel groups.

Not friendly, but not hostile. So, tolerant? Cooperative, even? The Kurds in Afrin NEEDED the border crossing to Turkey for trading (guns, oil, supplies, fighters etc) and knew Turkey would close the border if the Kurds themselves seized the border from the rebel group they cooperate with.

Inside Afrin the situation was calm. The canton was under Kurdish control, but internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Aleppo and other parts of Syria and the YPG built defensive constructions on the frontlines with the different rebel groups. This relatively calm situation was mirrored by the YPG and its female counterpart the Women´s Protection Units (YPJ). While the cantons of Kobane and the Jazira introduced forced conscription for male Kurds to the YPG in summer 2014, the YPG was still a voluntary force in Afrin in 2015. Even the internal conflicts between the PYD and the Kurdish opposition parties that participated in the Kurdish National Council (ENK) were relatively calm. Unlike in Jazira, the parties supportive of the Iraqi Kurdistan president Masoud Barzani were traditionally weak in Afrin and the PKK had been dominate since the 1980s.

And the PKK dominates the area and has for 30 plus years now (as mentioned)

Although skirmishes occurred between YPG and the rebel groups, none of these skirmishes led to a full scale war. In fact, Afrin managed to maintain some trust with both its regime and rebel neighbors, as exhibited by its role as a negotiator between rebel groups and the pro-regime forces in the Shia enclave of Nubl and al-Zahra.

The situation started to change when Turkey closed the Öncüpinar / Bab al-Salama border in March 2015. The border crossing was a lifeline for both rebel groups and the Kurds in Afrin, and keeping it open had ensured at least some cooperation between the Kurds and opposition groups. The opposition coalition al-Jabha al-Shamiyya, which at that time controlled the Syrian side of the border crossing, lost their most important tool for negotiating with the YPG and the Kurdish administration in Afrin. Turkish attempts to erect a border wall to prevent illegal border crossing also caused economic problems in Afrin.

I was aware that Turkey had begun constructing a wall some time ago-

The Russian-backed regime offensive from February 1-3 of this year opened a corridor to Nubl and al-Zahra, north of Aleppo city, and opposition forces in northern Aleppo around Azaz found themselves cornered with the regime to the south, ISIS to the east, Afrin to the west, and a closed Turkish border to the north.

The YPG and Jaysh al-Thuwwar, both members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and began attacking the opposition to unite Afrin with the eastern Kurdish cantons. SDF is predominantly Kurdish YPG/YPJ forces—51,000 of its 55,000 are Kurdish—but it also contains 4,000 Arab and Syriac fighters. The fact that Jaysh al-Thuwwar has been prominent in attacking opposition forces around Azaz makes it difficult to simplify the current fighting to Kurdish versus Arab forces. However, Jaysh al-Thuwwar is probably hedging its bets. The main fighting groups all have international support: the US backs the SDF, Russia and Iran back the regime, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia back various rebel coalitions. Jaysh al-Thuwwar sees allying with the YPG, which it fought with against ISIS, and US support as its best chances for survival.

Readers here already understand the SDF is cover for Kurdish PKK, with a few token Arabs thrown into the mix. To make a good show for the masses and obfuscate the fact that SDF and YPG are annexing Syrian territory for Rojova aka Kurdistan

The rebel held-city of Azaz lies between Jarablus and Afrin. The YPG is trying to reach it before Turkish or regime forces. If the Syrian regime takes Azaz or Turkey establishes a safe zone there, the YPG would not be able to link the cantons of Afrin and Kobane. From Kobane in the east, the YPG is advancing east towards Jarablus against ISIS. Turkey has said that crossing the Euphrates is a red line, and has shelled YPG forces for trying to do so. The SDF forces are strong enough to fight ISIS and the rebel groups in the region, especially while taking advantage of Russian and regime air strikes against the opposition, but are not strong to survive a confrontation with the Turkish army or Syrian army and their Russian and Iranian supporters.

If the Syrian regime takes Azaz ? Wait a minute this is Syrian territory. So, doesn't Azaz actually belong to Syria anyway. Clearly the Syrian government and army had intended to take Azaz.
And Turkey is cross border shelling to make it difficult for the Kurds to take the area..

Turkey is in a difficult situation. Although it has indicated that it is prepared to send ground forces into Syria, it is unlikely to do so without international backing. Instead, it has resorted to shelling Kurdish positions and supporting rebel forces against the YPG. On Friday, February 19, Turkish forces started shelling Kurdish villages and Afrin city. Turkish forces are attacking from Kilis (north of Afrin) and Sucuköy (west of Afrin). Turkish artillery shelled Afrin’s city center and its Ashrafia neighborhood, killing two civilians. The Turkish army also shelled the villages Deir Ballout, Hamam, Kafr Janneh, Mesalê Hêgicê, Senarê, Anqelê, Firîrê, Hec Hesnê, and Avraz, where three civilians from the same family were killed. The Turkish army crossed about 300 meters into Syria and pulled out some 500 olive trees in preparation of erecting a wall for security and to prevent smuggling.

Turkey is unlikely to send troops without international backing- I've talked this up a number of times already- So their building their wall....

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have also supported the formation of Jaysh Halab, a new opposition coalition that says that it will fight the regime, ISIS, and SDF. Its first operations were reportedly against the latter. Turkey also helped rebel fighters cross from Idlib through Öncüpinar / Bab al-Salam and through the village of Atme, just south of the Afrin canton, so that they can attack SDF forces. Atme, which hosts one of the biggest camps of displaced persons (the Olive Tree Camp) with more than 28,000 people, could become a new frontline between rebel groups and the YPG/YPJ. However, the most important battle will be in Azaz and Jarablus. It is a race for who will take the corridor first: Turkey, the regime and its allies, or the Kurds and their allies.

If Turkey doesn't enter Syria, which is not very likely. The race for Azaz will come down to being between Syrian Army and it's allies or the Kurds and their allies?
SAA and it's allies Iran and Russia?
Or the Kurds and their NATO allies ?

Eimar on February 24, 2016 · at 9:37 pm UTC
“Autonomy for Kurds in Northern Syria is practically de facto – as agreed with Assad in exchange for the defence of the Syrian State”

There’s the claim of that illusory agreement- Can you provide additional information from external sources regarding this agreement?
Why would an autonomous Kurdish state defend the “Syrian state”??
–
Would Abkhazia defend Georgia? NO.
Would South Ossetia defend Georgia? No.
Would Transdniestria defend Moldova? No.
Why on earth would we believe an autonomous Kurdish state would defend the Syrian state?!!
That seems a very non credible claim.
Also, looking at reality, the fact that the YPG never once defended the Syrian state! Instead fighting “ISIS” all the while annexing Syrian territory, claiming it as their own, indicates non defence of the Syrian state. In fact it could clearly be seen as an attack on the sovereignty of the Syrian state- Hardly a defence strategy for the Syrian state.

Eimar;“The original Zionist plan only wants a ‘Kurdistan’ that is controlled (currently via the Barzani clan in Iraq) by them."

That is not true at all. In fact I would call that intentionally misleading. Israel wants a Kurdistan, they’ve made that very plain. Very clear. They want a cojoined Kurdistan. A 2nd Israel as some zionists have called it themselves
The Syrian Kurds you reference?- Don’t you mean the PKK? Because it’s not clear how many real Syrian Kurds exist in Syria any more- And it’s long documented the PKK has been involved in Syria- So more misinformation? Intentional? Or otherwise?
Lots of reports regarding PKK involvement with so called “syrian kurds”

The United Nations carried out its first airdrop of humanitarian aid
to the Syrian city of Deir al-Zor , UN aid chief Stephen O'Brien said,
delivering 21 tonnes of relief to civilians besieged by Islamic State
militants.

"Earlier this morning a WFP (World Food Programme)
plane dropped the first cargo of 21 [metric] tonnes of items
into Deir al-Zor," O'Brien told the UN Security Council on Wednesday.
"We have received initial reports ... that pallets have landed in the
target area."

UN aid chief Stephen O'Brien told the UN security council:

"Earlier this morning a WFP (World Food Programme)
plane dropped the first cargo of 21 [metric] tonnes of items
into Deir al-Zor,"
"We have received initial reports ... that pallets have landed in the
target area."

Sounds to me as if Mr Stephen O Brien had verified, through appropriate channels, the pallets had landed in the target area

Initially, the UN said reports from Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC)
teams on the ground in Deir al-Zour suggested that the first cargo of 21
tonnes of aid dropped over the city had landed in the target area as
planned.

2- Ooooops, we aren't so sure?

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric later told reporters the WFP was still trying to get information on where the aid ended up, suggesting it may not have all reached the target area."As you know, airdrops can be very challenging," he said. "The pallets were dropped. They're trying to reach local partners to ensure that the aid was received.”

An agency of the United Nations has admitted on Thursday that 21 tons of
humanitarian aid scheduled to be air dropped to assist the legions of
people starving in Syrian has been damaged, lost, or destroyed, when it
fell into an area that had been covered by land mines.

According to the U.N. World Food Programme spokesman Abeer Etefa, 10 of
the 21 pallets of vegetable oil, lentils, rice, and salt “drifted away
and are so far unaccounted for,” seven pallets landed in no man’s land,
and four of them were damaged

10 just drifted away..... Seven landed in "no man's land". Whatever the heck that is supposed to mean?! Sounds like nonsense! Sounds like excuse making! What defines no man's land in this circumstance? Words that say nothing. And the last four were damaged

Reminds me of those airdrops of weapons that inadvertently end up in the hands of ISIS- ;) Could be more weapons to YPG, undercover of 'food aid'? What is certain? The UN claims are not credible.

The resolution demanded the end to ANY actions that could undermine Syrian sovereignty.
Which means that resolution could have been aimed at many players- US. Israel. UK. France. Turkey. Saudi Arabia.

Mike Whitney opens up with a questionable claim, framing the narrative. He then contradicts his opening claim:

"Russia’s deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, “The main elements of this Russian draft resolution are to demand that all parties refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Syria, that they fully respect Syria’s sovereignty and independence, stop incursions, and abandon plans for ground operations.”

As I’ve stated. All parties respect Syria’s sovereignty and independence So why finger point at Turkey? Because shill for NATO, Mike Whitney wants readers to know that Turkey is a bad nation. While misleading with this UN resolution claim. Mike Whitney wants reader to think that Russia and Turkey are headed for a conflict. This is certainly what NATO wants. What NATO desires. What NATO has encouraged. But so far neither Russia nor Turkey have taken the bait-

MW

“There was nothing controversial about the resolution, no tricks and no hidden meaning. The delegates were simply asked to support Syrian sovereignty and oppose armed aggression. These are the very principles upon which the United Nations was founded. The US and its allies rejected these principles because they failed to jibe with Washington’s geopolitical ambitions in Syria”

Yes, the US and their allies rejected the principles because it obviously failed to jibe with Washingtons’ political ambitions in Syria- AND in Turkey. Sincethe US wants to draw Turkey into Syria.

Fuller: Ankara must "stop trying to drag NATO into unwise confrontations with Russia."

This guy is a laugh a minute- ha ha hawhen it is really the US/NATO that has been baiting a fight between the Turkey and Russia.

MW:

"We continue to believe that the US-Kurdish (YPG) alliance does not really advance US strategic interests in Syria"

Really Mike? Well if it doesn't advance US strategic interests does it advance Israel's? Dishonest.

MW:

“Turkish generals want assurances that they will not be prosecuted for war crimes in the future. The best way to do that is to make sure that any invasion has the blessing of either the US, NATO or the UN.”

Mr Whitney, speaking the same language I’ve spoken here- The intermingling of Turkey’s military with that of the US. Good disinfo always contains some tidbits of valid info

MW :

“This leads me to believe that the Washington’s primary objective in Syria is no longer the removal of Syrian President Bashar al Assad but the bogging down of Russia in a never-ending conflict.”

Washington hasn’t given up on removing Bashar al Assad- That’s still the plan. But there is more to it still, how about getting Turkey and Russia fighting? How many times has that been mentioned here? Over and over. Since the shooting down of the Russian jet- The US has pushed and pushed Russia and Turkey towards confrontation.Last mention yesterday: Pentagon & CIA Chiefs: Collude for a Russian Quagmire

How does Mike Whitney tie all this into Erdogan being overthrown? I’m hoping we get to that information at some point in time- Instead Mike Whitney presents a garbled hodge podge of mumbo jumbo- Intended to dazzle the reader with bullshit or truthiness? Whichever?

MW:

“Erdogan’s threats to invade Syria have intensified following a car bombing in Ankara last week.....”

Turkey and Saudi Arabia still have zero intention of sending ground troops into Syria- Both nations, as stated weeks ago, will only commit to ground troops if the US takes the lead.

"Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu says Turkey and Saudi Arabia have currently no plan for a ground incursion into Syria"

Considering the compromised military assets of both Turkey and Saudi Arabia I’m not sure how long they can stay out of this quagmire, but, so far they’ve managed

MW:

“The real purpose of the US-YPG alliance is to enrage Turkey and provoke them into a cross-border conflict with the Russian-led coalition. If Turkey deploys ground troops to Syria, then Moscow could face the quagmire it has tried so hard to avoid"

Well Mike, that’s a half truth! While the US/ YPG alliance is definitely being employed to ‘enrage’ Turkey, it's also being employed to destabilize Turkey. (PKK= YPG) With an eye to balkanization.
If Turkey deployed troops it would only be with US approval/leadership. The deployment of troops to Syria would leave Turkey wide open to increased PKK attacks- And possibly a coup. The end of Turkey as we've all known it - I’ve written about this for so long now Mike. But not in half truth style

MW:

“More importantly, a Turkish invasion would
exacerbate divisions inside Turkey seriously eroding Erdogan’s grip on
power while creating vulnerabilities the US could exploit by working
with its agents in the Turkish military and Intel agency (MIT). The
ultimate objective would be to foment sufficient social unrest to incite
a color-coded revolution that would dispose of the troublemaking
Erdogan in a Washington-orchestrated coup, much like the one the CIA
executed in Kiev.”

But Mike this has been going on for a while now. This is a work in progress. Your talking the end game for Erdogan, while ignoring this is a plan in motion- Long in motion- Goodness know I’ve mentioned the impending destruction of Turkey since November 2014. And have bolstered that theory in article after article- Yet, somehow I’ve been troll attacked at varying sites as a “Turkish agent” for stating the obvious. That which was staring us all straight into the eyes. Perhaps my observations were too close to the truth?

"It is not hard to imagine Obama secretly giving Erdogan the greenlight, and then pulling the rug out from under him as soon as his troops crossed over into Syria. A similar scam was carried out in 1990 when U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave Saddam Hussein the nod to invade Kuwait"

“But even worse, the safe zone may be a way to draw Turkey into a fight it can't win- In order to grind it down”

Mike Whitney. Seriously, have you been pilfering my ideas? And if you are, why don’t you mention the creation of Kurdistan? Or would that give too much away?And erode your value as as an obfuscator for NATO ? Disinfo propagator?

This is the third time I've noticed Mike Whitney engaging in extremely misleading writings

Some credible reports that YPG has received US High Tech anti- tank missiles

I have serious, serious doubts these anti tank missiles were provided to YPG, by the US, to fight ISIS. Anti tank missiles seem a bit of an over kill for targeting trucks.Were these anti tank missiles given to YPG to use against Turkey? Entirely possible and fits into the destabilizing of Turkey that is ongoing.

If the video, believed to have been filmed near the Syrian town of Shaddadi, is authenticated it would show that Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) forces have been given an upgrade in technology.

The footage shows a truck allegedly belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) on the receiving end of a direct hit from the missile.

The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using, as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply

“Assuming he’s not firing from the side of a mountain or on top of a compound, it’s definitely a Javelin,” Corporal Thomas Gray, a former Marine Javelin gunner who watched the video told the Washington Post”

I’m ignoring claims of ignorance or denial from US officials- Because they just aren’t credible.It’s been obvious and written about extensively here, that the US is participating fully in the destabilization of Turkey- Very obviously the US is not going to admit to or acknowledge their duplicity in this regard.

If the Kurdish YPG fighters have been armed with Javelin anti-tank
missiles by Washington, it is a move that will not go down well with
Turkey

As the destabilization/betrayal of NATO ally Turkey continues unabated

Unlike the BGM-71 TOW–a system that the U.S. has sent in numbers to
CIA-backed groups fighting in Syria–the Javelin uses an advanced system
to actually lock on to its target through infrared imaging. The Javelin
is also more portable than the TOW, which requires a heavy tripod and a
portable power supply; a Javelin can easily be fired from the shoulder.

Syria , Shaddadi Front ..outskirts of Hassake, YPG/SDF (People's units
protection/Syrian Democratic Force) destroy an isis VBIED before
reaching its destination. Probably it was destroyed with the new
supplyed FGM-148 Javelin ATGM (note the missile that came from above!)
donated at Kurds forces in this area.--

I have issues with this news story... Serious doubts about it's veracity. ( Personally speaking, I don't believe this happened at all)Why would Ahrar al Sham wait for days to make this claim?It's obvious why Jerusalem Post would publish this news. (Reinforces propaganda that Israeli media is always pushing)Could this news story be provided as an ego boost for Israeli backed terrorists? An incentive for them to continue the fight?All non credible news stories provide us opportunity to discuss the objectives of such propaganda? What do you think?

According to the media office of Ahrar al-Sham, the two factions, in
coordination with local jihadists who were located at the Russian
military base, decided to bomb the car after they observed a gathering
of senior Russian generals at the military base.Ahrar al-Sham
claims that dozens of Russian generals were killed and injured in the
explosion. According to the movement, the announcement of the terror
attack was delayed until Wednesday to ensure that the jihadists who
committed the attack returned safely to opposition territories.

The
military base that was hit by the car bomb is considered one of the
most important military centers of the Russian forces on the Syrian
coast, located some 15 kilometers from Latakia.

The belated
announcement of the car bombing came shortly before the Syrian truce was
scheduled to start on Saturday. Russia and the US have already
announced that the ceasefire will not apply to ISIS and al-Nusra Front,
but in light of this terror attack, Russia might demand the exclusion of
Ahrar al-Sham as well.

To summarize- The NATO global army and it’s minions will supply more
weapons. To keep the opposition viable as a fighting force. To prevent
Syria from retaking it’s territory. At all costs. Until a new president
is in place. And it will be the evil & ruthless Hillary Clinton.

Surprise, surprise- or NOT! That is exactly the plan ...WSJ ; I've omitted just a couple of paragraphs- This is an excellent information packed article.

"President Barack Obama’s top military and intelligence advisers don’t believe Russia will abide by a just-announced cease-fire in
Syria and want the administration to ready plans to increase pressure
on Moscow by expanding covert support to rebels fighting the
Russian-backed Assad regime"

Which tells us all very clearly the US has no intention of abiding by the ceasefire- no matter their claims about Russia- the US will not abide.

Russia’s bombing campaign in Syria, launched last year, has
infuriated the CIA in particular because the strikes have directly
targeted CIA-backed rebels, U.S. officials say, weakening more moderate
forces opposed to the regime.

Officials say it remains unclear
whether stepped-up support for CIA-backed rebels in Syria would make
much of a difference at this stage, given how much ground they have
already lost in the Russian-backed assault. Mr. Obama has also been
reluctant to allow either the U.S. or its regional partners to supply
the rebels with advanced ground-to-air anti-aircraft weapons so
opposition fighters can fend off Russian air power, the sort of system
which could be a game changer.

Addressing this talk of Saudi Arabia supplying these weapons to the rebels without US consent. The Saudis themselves have said they would not do so unless the US ok's the transfer of these weapons to the CIA backed fighters- This has been mentioned here. All this talk of the Saudi's invading. Turkey invading. It's just obfuscation. Neither nation will invade or send arms that are not approved by the US. Because the US is running this show!

"Officials said Mr. Carter and Gen. Dunford have yet to make formal
recommendations to Mr. Obama about so-called “Plan B” options should the
ceasefire collapse, though discussions are under way at the White
House. Officials said Mr. Carter could support several options to
increase pressure on Moscow, not just an expansion of the CIA’s arming
program"

A senior administration official said of the White House’s review of
options: “We’ve always said we’ll judge Russia by its actions, not its
words. And that remains the case even more so following the announcement
on Monday of a path toward a cessation of hostilities.”

The official added: “We would be derelict were we not to plan for
various contingencies, especially given the tragic history of this
conflict... To be clear: our actions are not aimed at Russia. Our focus,
however, does not change the fact that Russia, by increasingly
involving itself in a vicious conflict on the side of a brutal dictator,
will become enmeshed in a quagmire. Should it not change course,
Russia’s fate will be self-inflicted.”

Shades of Afghanistan? The US will attempt to create the quagmire conditions.

Additional options:

Other options under discussion in the White House meetings include
providing intelligence support to moderate rebels to help them better
defend themselves against Russian air attacks and possibly help them
conduct more effective offensive operations. Any decision to help the
rebels directly go after Russian soldiers or destroy Russian airplanes
could mark a dramatic escalation in the conflict.

A less divisive
option with wide support among Mr. Obama’s advisers would impose new
economic sanctions against Russia. But senior administration officials
said they doubt European powers would go along with such an effort at
this time given the importance they place on trade ties with Moscow.

This month’s drawn-out State Department-led negotiations with Moscow
over a cease-fire agreement in Syria exposed a growing rift within the
Obama administration over how tough to be with Russia.

Mr. Carter
has voiced public support for the negotiations launched by Secretary of
State John Kerry. But while the talks were under way last week, Messrs.
Carter and Brennan, and Gen. Dunford, warned the White House the
continued negotiations risked undermining Washington’s standing with key
partners in the region who are part of parallel U.S.-led coalitions—one
in support of anti-Assad rebels, the other supporting the fight against
Islamic State.

At one point last week, the Pentagon came close
to withdrawing its representatives from the Geneva cease-fire talks
after the Russians claimed military cooperation between the U.S. and
Russia was part of the closed-door discussions, according to senior
administration officials.

Mr. Carter was upset about the Russian claims because he had
explicitly ruled out putting military-to-military cooperation on the
table during the cease-fire discussions, the officials said.

The
Pentagon believes Russia made the claims to try to drive a wedge between
the U.S. and its coalition partners, and to try to make it look like
Washington would support Moscow’s military campaign in Syria and accept
Mr. Assad.

While Russia was engaged in the cease fire talks, U.S.
officials say its war planes stepped up the pace of their attacks on
positions held by moderate rebels. The CIA saw the expanded strikes as
an effort by Moscow to crush the agency’s partners on the ground, and
some intelligence officials questioned whether moderate forces would be
able to bounce back even if more covert aid was provided.

“The Russians, you have to admit, are very skilled at the way they
work it in a way that does provide the perception that they’re working
hard on trying to find a solution. Meanwhile they’re bombing very
aggressively all the things that they have in the past,” a senior
administration official said.

Russian officials say they are fighting terrorists.

Mr.
Kerry, who spearheaded the cease-fire talks, believes the agreement the
U.S. and Russia announced on Monday has “a viable chance of
succeeding,” according to a senior administration official close to the
secretary.

The success of the ceasefire, like the existence of moderate rebels, just smoke and mirrors

In contrast, Mr. Carter told senior officials as recently as Monday
that the ceasefire won't hold. “He thinks it’s a ruse," a senior
administration official said.
Messrs. Carter and Brennan, and
Gen. Dunford raised many of their concerns about Mr. Kerry’s talks with
Moscow in a series of private White House sessions last week involving
Mr. Kerry, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice and White
House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, according to senior administration
officials.

The senior administration official close to Mr. Kerry
said the secretary was cognizant of the challenge of ensuring Russian
compliance with the deal. The official added that the ceasefire
agreement was partially intended in Mr. Kerry’s view to “pin the
Russians down” and to test whether Moscow can be trusted. If Russia
doesn’t abide by the deal, then “Plan B thinking needs to occur,” the
official said.Mr. Kerry has been a longtime supporter of the CIA
program in Syria and has repeatedly run into opposition from the
Pentagon when he advocated for greater military involvement in the
conflict, such as the creation of a “safe” zone in northern Syria
to protect the moderate opposition from aerial attack. But it is unclear
if Mr. Kerry is prepared to join the Pentagon and CIA chiefs in
supporting an expansion of the CIA program at this time.

So the CIA and Pentagon, working together- quibbling over differences but not over the aims or goals of the plot.

Senior
administration officials involved in the discussions said it also is
unclear whether Mr. Obama would support an increase in covert assistance
to the CIA-backed rebels at this time.

Several senior White
House national security officials, including Ms. Rice and Mr. McDonough,
have privately voiced skepticism in the past about the CIA effort.
White House critics of the program warned that open-ended support for
the rebels could pull the U.S. deeper into the conflict over time, with
little chance of success as long as Moscow is prepared to double down
in support of Mr. Assad, according to former administration officials.

Current
and former officials said Mr. Obama was persuaded in 2013 to
green-light the covert program in Syria in part because doing so gave
the CIA influence over the actions of regional partners, including Saudi
and Turkish intelligence, preventing them, for example, from
introducing advanced anti-aircraft weapons known as Manpads on the
battlefield. Washington warned the weapons could fall into terrorists’
hands and be turned against commercial aircraft.

As mentioned in previous posts the intermingling of intelligence agencies across nation state borders- CIA "influencing" Turkish and Saudi intelligence agencies.....

If the U.S.
doesn’t take action to prevent moderate rebel forces from being wiped
out by the Russian-backed offensive, then the Saudis or some other group
could decide to break ranks with Washington and send large numbers of
Manpads into northern Syria to shoot down Russian
bombers, U.S. intelligence agencies have warned policy
makers, increasing the chances of a wider conflict.

If , ranks are broken, it will only be to give the US plausible deniability. The CIA, as admitted, has much influence over the intelligence apparatus of both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In my opinion, the US wants either or both of these nations to enmesh themselves into this quagmire. For the very same reason they wish to create a quagmire for Russia. To weaken all 3 nations, simultaneously.

I just had a telephone conversation with President
of the United States of America Barack Obama. The phone call was
initiated by the Russian side, but the interest was certainly mutual.

During
our conversation, we approved joint statements of Russia and the US,
as co-chairs of the ISSG, on the cessation of hostilities in Syria.
Adoption of the statement was preceded by intensive work by Russian
and American experts. We also made use of the positive experience we
accumulated over the course of cooperation in eliminating chemical
weapons in Syria.

Our negotiators held several rounds of closed consultations.
As a result, we were able to reach an important, specific result. It was
agreed that the cessation of hostilities in Syria commences at 00:00
(Damascus time) on February 27, 2016 on terms and conditions that are
a part of the Russian-American statement.

The essence of these
conditions is as follows: by 12:00 pm on February 26, 2016, all parties
warring in Syria must indicate to the Russian Federation or our American
partners their commitment to the cessation of hostilities. Russian
and American troops will jointly delineate the territories where these
groups are active.

No military action will be taken against them
by the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, Russian Armed Forces
and the US-led coalition. In turn, the opposition will cease all
military action against the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic
and other groups supporting them.

ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nursa, and other
terrorist organisations designated by the United Nations Security
Council, are excluded from the cessation of hostilities. Strikes against
them will continue.

Striking ISIS benefits the Kurds. Does this mean that Syria can reclaim the territory once ISIS is removed from it? It certainly should be Syria's right to reclaim it's territory from all terrorists, including YPG, in my opinion.

It is fundamentally important that Russia
and the US, as co-chairs of the ISSG, are prepared to launch effective
mechanisms to promote and monitor compliance with the ceasefire by both
the Syrian Government and the armed opposition groups.
To achieve
this goal, we will establish a communication hotline and, if necessary,
a working group to exchange relevant information. Russia will conduct
the necessary work with Damascus and the legitimate Syrian leadership.
We expect that the United States will do the same with regard to their
allies and the groups they support.

I am sure that the joint actions agreed upon with the American
side will be enough to radically reverse the crisis situation in Syria.
We are finally seeing a real chance to bring an end to the long-standing
bloodshed and violence. As a result, humanitarian access to all Syrian
citizens in need should be made easier.

Most important is
the creation of conditions for launching a long-term political process
through a broad inter-Syrian dialogue in Geneva, under the auspices
of the UN.

Long term readers here surely know how little value I place on the UN

Unfortunately, recent history has many examples where
one-sided actions not sanctioned by the UN, which favour short-term
political or opportunistic interests, have led to dramatic results.
These examples are on everyone’s lips: Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Yemen.
Against
this background, Russian-American agreements on the cessation
of hostilities in Syria, and their joint implementation in coordination
with all nations participating in the International Syria Support Group,
can become an example of responsible actions the global community takes
against the threat of terrorism, which are based on international law
and UN principles.

I would like to hope that the Syrian leadership
and all our partners in the region and beyond will support the set
of actions chosen by representatives of Russia and the US.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has called for parliamentary elections to be held in April.

Assad announced in a
decree issued Monday that new parliament elections would be April 13.
Such elections are held once every four years.

The
announcement came hours after the U.S. and Russia agreed on a temporary
cessation of hostilities for Syria that will take effect Saturday, even
as major questions over enforcing the truce were left unresolved.

"As we move forward, we will remain vigilant to ensure that
implementation achieves what we set out to do, which is to stop the
violence and provide the space and the opportunity for a negotiated
political transition"

I don't believe Assad's call for election & this signed ceasefire are happenstance occurrences

The United States of America and the Russian
Federation, as co-chairs of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG)
and seeking to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis with
full respect for the fundamental role of the United Nations, are fully
determined to provide their strongest support to end the Syrian conflict
and establish conditions for a successful Syrian-led political
transition process, facilitated by the UN, in order to fully implement
the Munich Statement of the ISSG on February 11th, 2016, UN Security Council Resolution 2254, the 2015 Vienna Statements and the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.
In this regard, and in furtherance of the February 11th
decisions of the ISSG, the United States and Russia, as co-chairs of the
ISSG and ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, announce the adoption on February
22, 2016, of the Terms for a Cessation of Hostilities in Syria attached
as an Annex to this statement, and propose that the cessation of
hostilities commence at 00:00 (Damascus time) on February 27, 2016. The
cessation of hostilities is to be applied to those parties to the Syrian
conflict that have indicated their commitment to and acceptance of its
terms. Consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the
statements of the ISSG, the cessation of hostilities does not apply to
“Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist organizations designated
by the UN Security Council.
Any party engaged in military or para-military hostilities in Syria,
other than “Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist organizations
designated by the UN Security Council will indicate to the Russian
Federation or the United States, as co-chairs of the ISSG, their
commitment to and acceptance of the terms for the cessation of
hostilities by no later than 12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26, 2016.
In order to implement the cessation of hostilities in a manner that
promotes stability and protects those parties participating in it, the
Russian Federation and the United States are prepared to work together
to exchange pertinent information (e.g., aggregated data that delineates
territory where groups that have indicated their commitment to and
acceptance of the cessation of hostilities are active, and a focal point
for each side, in order to ensure effective communication) and develop
procedures necessary for preventing parties participating in the
cessation of hostilities from being attacked by Russian Armed Forces,
the U.S.-led Counter ISIL Coalition, the Armed Forces of the Syrian
government and other forces supporting them, and other parties to the
cessation of hostilities. Military actions, including airstrikes, of the
Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Armed Forces, and
the U.S.-led Counter ISIL Coalition will continue against ISIL, “Jabhat
al-Nusra,” and other terrorist organizations designated by the UN
Security Council. The Russian Federation and United States will also
work together, and with other members of the Ceasefire Task Force, as
appropriate and pursuant to the ISSG decision of February 11, 2016, to
delineate the territory held by "Daesh," "Jabhat al-Nusra" and other
terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council, which are
excluded from the cessation of hostilities.
In order to promote the effective implementation of the cessation of
hostilities, the ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, co-chaired by the United
States and Russia, has been established under UN auspices, including
political and military officials from the co-chairs and other Task Force
members; the UN Office of the Special Envoy for Syria (OSE) serves as
secretariat. The primary functions of the Task Force are, as provided in
the ISSG Statement of February 11, to: a) delineate the territory held
by “Daesh”, “Jabhat-al-Nusra” and other terrorist organizations
designated by the United Nations Security Council; b) ensure
communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly
de-escalate tensions; c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and d)
refer persistent non-compliant behavior by any of the parties to the
ISSG Ministers or those designated by the Ministers to determine
appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the
arrangements of the cessation of hostilities, and the protection it
affords them.
The United States and Russia are prepared, in their capacities as
co-chairs of the Ceasefire Task Force and in coordination with other
members of the ISSG Ceasefire Task Force as appropriate, to develop
effective mechanisms to promote and monitor compliance with the
ceasefire both by the governmental forces of the Syrian Arab Republic
and other forces supporting them, and the armed opposition groups. To
achieve this goal and to promote an effective and sustainable cessation
of hostilities, the Russian Federation and the United States will
establish a communication hotline and, if necessary and appropriate, a
working group to exchange relevant information after the cessation of
hostilities has gone into effect. In addressing incidents of
non-compliance, every effort should be made to promote communications
among all parties to restore compliance and rapidly de-escalate
tensions, and non-forcible means should be exhausted whenever possible
before resorting to use of force. The United States and Russia as
co-chairs of ISSG Ceasefire Task Force will develop such further
modalities and standard operating procedures as may be necessary to
implement these functions.
The United States and the Russian Federation together call upon all
Syrian parties, regional states and others in the international
community to support the immediate cessation of violence and bloodshed
in Syria and to contribute to the swift, effective and successful
promotion of the UN-facilitated political transition process in
accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254, the February 11
Statement of the ISSG, the 2015 Vienna statements of the ISSG, and the
2012 Geneva Communiqué.ANNEX

TERMS FOR CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN SYRIA

The nationwide cessation of hostilities is to apply to any party
currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities against any
other parties other than “Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist
organizations designated by the UN Security Council.
The responsibilities of the Syrian armed opposition are set out in
paragraph 1 below. The responsibilities of the Armed Forces of the
Syrian Arab Republic, and all forces supporting or associated with the
Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic are set out in paragraph 2
below.

1. To take part in the cessation of
hostilities, armed opposition groups will confirm – to the United States
of America or the Russian Federation, who will attest such
confirmations to one another as co-chairs of the ISSG by no later than
12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26 2016 – their commitment to and
acceptance of the following terms:

To full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted
unanimously on December 18, 2015, ‑ including the readiness to
participate in the UN-facilitated political negotiation process;

To cease attacks with any weapons, including rockets, mortars, and
anti-tank guided missiles, against Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab
Republic, and any associated forces;

To refrain from acquiring or seeking to acquire territory from other parties to the ceasefire;

To allow humanitarian agencies, rapid, safe, unhindered and sustained
access throughout areas under their operational control and allow
immediate humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need;

To proportionate use of force (i.e., no greater than required to
address an immediate threat) if and when responding in self-defense.

2. The above-mentioned commitments will
be observed by such armed opposition groups, provided that the Armed
Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, and all forces supporting or
associated with the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic have
confirmed to the Russian Federation as co-chair of the ISSG by no later
than 12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26, 2016 their commitment to and
acceptance of the following terms:

To full implementation of UN Security Resolution 2254, adopted
unanimously on December 18, 2015, including the readiness to participate
in the UN-facilitated political negotiation process;

To cease attacks with any weapons, including aerial bombardments by
the Air Force of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Aerospace Forces of
the Russian Federation, against the armed opposition groups (as
confirmed to the United States or the Russian Federation by parties to
the cessation of hostilities);

To refrain from acquiring or seeking to acquire territory from other parties to the ceasefire;

To allow humanitarian agencies, rapid, unhindered and sustained access
throughout areas under their operational control and allow immediate
humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need;

To proportionate use of force (i.e., no greater than required to
address an immediate threat) if and when responding in self-defense.

The Russian Federation and the United States, as co-chairs of the
ISSG and ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, are prepared to work together to
ensure effective communications and develop procedures necessary for
preventing parties participating in the cessation of hostilities from
being attacked by Russian Armed Forces, the U.S.-led Counter ISIL
Coalition, the Armed Forces of the Syrian government and other forces
supporting them, and other parties to the cessation of hostilities.
All parties further commit to work for the early release of detainees, particularly women and children.
Any party can bring a violation or potential violation of the
cessation of hostilities to the attention of the Task Force, either
through the OSE or the co-chairs. The OSE and Co-Chairs will establish
liaison arrangements with each other and the parties, and inform the
public generally about how any party may bring a violation to the
attention of the Task Force.
The United States and the Russian Federation as co-chairs confirm
that the cessation of hostilities will be monitored in an impartial and
transparent manner and with broad media coverage.

The United States and
Russia agreed Monday on a new cease-fire for Syria that will take
effect Saturday, U.S. officials said,even as major questions over
enforcing and responding to violations of the truce were left
unresolved.Where in Syria the fighting must stop and where
counterterrorism operations can continue also must be addressed.

If one has no mechanism or plan to address violation of the truce, then clearly, there will be no truce.

The
officials said the new timeline for the hoped-for breakthrough comes
after the two former Cold War foes, which are backing opposing sides in
Syria's civil war, agreed on terms for the "cessation of hostilities"
between Syrian President Bashar Assad's government and armed opposition
groups. Those sides must accept the deal by Friday.

The
truce will not cover the Islamic State, the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front
and any other militias designated as terrorist organizations by the
U.N. Security Council.

Which means the truce will again apply to YPG. And we all noticed how well YPG adhered to the Munich ceasefire

Both the U.S. and Russia are still targeting
those groups with airstrikes. An announcement is expected after
presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin speak by telephone Monday,
according to the officials, who weren't authorized to speak publicly on
the matter ahead of time and demanded anonymity.

Even if the cease-fire takes hold, fighting will by no means cease in Syria.

Yawn.

The plan largely
follows the blueprint set by Washington, Moscow and 15 other countries
at a conference in Germany earlier this month. That agreement called for
a truce by Feb. 19, a deadline that was missed.

Beyond
the new cease-fire date, Monday's agreement sets up a "communications
hotline" and, if needed, a working group to promote and monitor the
truce. Violations are to be addressed by the working group with an eye
toward restoring compliance and cooling tensions. The deal also calls
for "non-forcible means" to be exhausted before other means are pursued
for punishing transgressors.

The working group is not new- it seems just the "communications hotline" is an additional feature

Any party can report violations to the working group being co-chaired by the U.S. and Russia.

The two countries also will share "pertinent information" about territory held by rebel groups accepting the truce

Additionally- Turkey and Saudi Arabia still have zero intention of sending ground troops into Syria- Both nations, as stated weeks ago, will only commit to ground troops if the US takes the lead.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu says Turkey and Saudi Arabia
have currently no plan for a ground incursion into Syria.

Addressing
a press conference in the capital, Ankara, on Monday, Cavusoglu said
any ground operation inside Syria would need to involve all countries in
the so-called US-led coalition against Daesh Takfiri terrorists.

"I am gratified to see the final arrangements
concluded today for a cessation of hostilities in Syria and call on all
parties to accept and fully comply with its terms. If implemented and
adhered to, this cessation will not only lead to a decline in violence,
but also continue to expand the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian
supplies to besieged areas and support a political transition to a
government that is responsive to the desires of the Syrian people.
Today's agreement results from the committed diplomacy of many
countries and groups, and I want to thank all those who worked
diligently to bring it about, including the U.S. and Russian delegations
and other members of the International Syria Support Group.
We are all aware of the significant challenges ahead. Over the coming
days, we will be working to secure commitments from key parties that
they will abide by the terms of this cessation of hostilities and
further develop modalities for monitoring and enforcement.
This is a moment of promise, but the fulfillment of that promise
depends on actions. All parties must meet their commitments under this
agreement, ensure full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution
2254, and cease attacks on each other, including aerial bombardments.
And all parties must remain committed over a period of time to make
possible a political end to this conflict.
As we move forward, we will remain vigilant to ensure that
implementation achieves what we set out to do, which is to stop the
violence and provide the space and the opportunity for a negotiated
political transition, consistent with the Geneva Communique of 2012,
that unites all Syrians who reject dictatorship and terrorism and want
to build a new future for their country"

In Kerry's "cessation of hostilities" he still calls for the outing of Bashar Assad.Unbelievable! So you cease hostilities by calling for the leader to be ousted.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Let’s talk about the resolution proposed at the security council by Russia- The resolution, according to msm and alt media, that had everything to do with Turkey. And yet Turkey wasn’t even mentioned.Not named. Not cited.Nadda, nothing!Gee, I would think if this was about Turkey, Turkey would have been specifically mentioned? So, what gives? In case you didn't know, the resolution was soundly rejected. Read all the way through and I think you'll understand why

“The Russian draft resolution didn’t name Turkey” but it was clearly aimed at the Turkish government

If Russia didn't cite Turkey specifically, this resolution was NOT aimed at Turkey, alone. No matter how many times the alt or msm media imply this resolution targeted Turkey, the fact that Russia didn't cite Turkey specifically tells me this resolution cut a wider swathe

The fact is the Russian draft resolution according to Maria Zakharova will include “demands to end any actions that undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria that are at odds with UN Security Council resolution 2254"

“Earlier on Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova announced on Friday that a draft resolution will include demands to end any actions that undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria that are at odds with UN Security Council resolution 2254"

Russia plans to table a Security Council resolution demanding an end to actions that undermine Syria's sovereignty, ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement posted on the ministry's Internet site”

The resolution was soundly rejected by all member of the security council

UN, February 20. /TASS/. UN Security Council members failed to reach consent on Russia-initiated draft resolution in support of Syria’s sovereignty, Venezuela’s permanent envoy to UN Rafael Ramirez stated in his Twitter account.

The Kremlin regrets the UN Security Council's refusal to support the Russian resolution on Syria, Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov has said.

"All we can do is to express our regret that this draft resolution has not been supported," he told reporters.

Moscow in the UN Security Council has listed major US and British strikes against a sovereign state

On a shortened list of flagrant violations of international law are among other things: the bombing in Yemen in 1946, the US invasion of Grenada (by the UN Security Council called gross violation of international law, and Ronald Regan to him, this assessment is not at all spoiled your appetite for breakfast), Libya and Nicaragua 1986, Panama in 1989, Yugoslavia in 1999, Iraq in 2003 and again in Libya in 2011 ...

Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia in the UN Security Council Petr ILJICEV: "The consequences of the last intervention in Libya and Syria, its amazing scale. These are the terrible suffering of the civilian population and the destruction of the cultural heritage of mankind, and the migrant crisis without precedent. It is obvious that the presumption own excellence entitles some countries that have long placed himself above the objectives and principles of the Charter of the UN "

RUSSIA is the UN Security Council presented the "express review" the most flagrant violations of international law by the United States and Great Britain.

The list, which includes events of the twentieth century to the present day, he read the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the RF in the world organization Petr Iljicev in response to the accusations against Moscow regarding the events in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea to Russia.

"Some delegations spoke about the violation of the principles of the UN Charter, groundlessly accusing it of Russia. To this fantasy not to create false impression, let me make one "express review" the most flagrant violations of international law, including the objectives and principles of the Charter of the United Nations in recent decades, especially because to them, apparently, a little forgotten, "- said the Russian diplomat the debate dedicated to the maintenance of international peace and security.

Among other things, he referred to the British bombing Yemeni city Harib 1946, pointing out that the SB condemned these moves Resolution 188 "stressing that repression is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter."

"In 1983 the United States to invade Grenada. The General Assembly in its resolution 37/8 called facts SAD "gross violation of international law". Many probably know how to react to this document of the then US president (Ronald Reagan) that he was not at the news spoiled my appetite for breakfast "- reminded Iljicev.

Iljicev recalled that the United States in 1986 launched an attack on Libya, and in 1989 introduced the Army in Panama. In both cases, this fact was condemned by the UN General Assembly, which of them amount to a violation of international law.

The Russian diplomat pointed out that the violation of the UN Charter stated the International Court of Justice. "For example, in its first trial in the history of the case, the Corfu Channel 'in 1946, the court found that the United Kingdom violated the sovereignty of Albania. It is well known judgment in the case, Nicaragua against the United States' 1986. In it, the court directly pointed out that the US violated the sovereignty of Nicaragua and norms of non-interference in internal affairs and the lack of use of force "- said Iljicev.

He said Russian deputy ambassador to the UN, "irresponsible attitude" the US and its allies under the Charter of the United Nations continued to degenerate and the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was followed by Libya, where "with the seemingly altruistic outside help fire broke out, destroying the country and leaving in its place desolation and chaos, "said the diplomat.

In his words, "just such illegal interventions in the form of illegal air strikes or delivery of weapons to non-governmental armed formations," led to the rise of extremism in Syria, which in the end, "spawned the emergence and strengthening of such terrible phenomenon" as a terrorist organization Islamic State .

"The consequences of the intervention in Libya and Syria, its amazing scale. These are the terrible suffering of the civilian population and the destruction of the cultural heritage of mankind, and the migrant crisis is unprecedented, "- said Iljicev.

He pointed out that 70 years after the end of World War II the main principles that form the basis of a system of international relations "become an obstacle for some unpleasant and, as a result, are subject to different interpretations, or simply bypassed."

"It is obvious that the presumption own excellence entitles some countries that have long placed himself above the objectives and principles of the UN Charter," - said the Russian diplomat, referring to the sad statement of US President Barack Obama on the "excellence" of the American nation.

Think about this?

War is .....

...THE CONTINUATION OF STATE POLICY, BY OTHER MEANS

.......A POLITICAL ACTIVITY IN WHICH VIOLENCE IS USED TO BEND THE WILL OF YOUR ENEMY TO THAT OF YOUR OWN

Stop being Manipulated by the Elites

For if you [the rulers] suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves [outlaws] and then punish them.´ - Sir Thomas More (1478-1535)

Resource: Ukraine Military Marker

How your brain works

“‘Each thought and behavior is embedded within the circuitry of the neurons, and…neuronal activity accompanying or initiating an experience persists in the form of reverberating neuronal circuits, which become more strongly defined with repetition”

Richard Restak

Unshackle YOUR mind

'The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed'- Steve Biko

Total Pageviews

Edward Bernays: Perception Management it is a Reality

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society,"

"Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

About Me

This blog is a place to not only post information that will never see the light of day on the mainstream media, but, also to present alternative perspectives to main stream media information, that most often presents no background, no context, and never questions the information presented.
The name I chose, Penny for your thoughts, is an invitation to readers to share their relevant thoughts on the varying information.